Search

Despite increasing interest in the narratives of entrepreneurial failure, the understanding of how entrepreneurs reconstruct their identity as they advance from experiences of failure to new ventures remains partial. Based on a narrative analysis of 49 entrepreneurs' experiences, we uncover three narrative types used by entrepreneurs when moving on: shielding, transformation, and authenticity. In particular, we elaborate on how the entrepreneurs employ specific discursive practices in their narratives to deal with three central aspects of identity reconstruction: construction of responsibility, identity transition, and identity validation. Thus, our analysis elucidates the narrative underpinnings of dealing with failure and deepens our understanding of entrepreneurial identity construction in the context of moving on.

In this article, based on a Symposium held at the 2022 Academy of Management Meeting, we present a moderated discussion between established scholars in the field of grand challenges—Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari, Natalie Slawinski, and Eero Vaara—focusing on the role of institutional, paradox, and practice theories in research on grand challenges. Our goal for the symposium was to bring these theoretical perspectives into conversation, reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the lenses, and discuss potential intersections for future research on grand challenges. We present the panelists’ prepared remarks as well as the interactive discussion covering four topics: the limitations of existing concepts and theories, materiality, impact, and relations between theory and practice. As part of these four discussion topics, we also present questions and reflections from the audience. We conclude by summarizing insights gleaned from the symposium about critical gaps and avenues for future research.

Miten Helsingin Sanomien tuottavuuskeskustelu rakentaa institutionaalista todellisuutta? Miten eri näkökulmia legitimoidaan? Miten keskustelu heijastaa instituutioiden historiaa? Tutkimukseni etsii vastausta näihin kysymyksiin. Työni asettuu osaksi diskursiivisen legitimoinnin tukimusta, joka kuuluu institutionaalisen teorian tutkimusalaan ja laajemmin organisaatiotutkimukseen. Tutkimuskysymykseni ovat yhteiskunnallisesti olennaisia, koska tuottavuus on taloudellisen hyvinvoinnin perusta. Tuottavuuskeskustelu ulottuu laajemmalle alueelle yhteiskunnassa kuin tuottavuuskäsitteen määritelmän mukainen soveltamisalue. Siksi on luontevaa tutkia diskurssianalyyttisesti, miten tuottavuuskeskustelu itsessään legitimoi instituutioita. Helsingin Sanomien tuottavuuskeskustelu jäsentyy neljään diskurssiin: työ, kansantalous, digitalisaatio ja kehitys. Tuottavuuskeskustelu rakentuu institutionalisoituneista käsitteistä. Institutionalisoitumisella tarkoitan, että käsitteellä on vakiintunut merkitys, jota ei juuri pohdita. Esimerkiksi osallistumisesta puhutaan mainitsematta, mihin osallistutaan. Osallistumisen merkitykset ovat abstrakteja. Työtä tekemällä voi osallistua bruttokansantuotteen kasvattamiseen. Merkittävin instituutio tuottavuuskeskustelussa on työmarkkina. Työmarkkina on alun perin ollut teoreettinen malli työn kysynnän ja tarjonnan kohtaannolle. Tuottavuuskeskustelussa työmarkkinat ovat kuitenkin joukko organisaatioita ja vakiintuneita toimintatapoja. Kohtaanto-ongelma ei ole työmarkkinan keskeinen merkitys vaan yksi työmarkkinainstituutioiden toimintaan vaikuttava tekijä. Tuottavuuskeskustelussa tärkeimmät legitimointistrategiat ovat moralisointi, rationalisointi ja normalisointi. Moralisoinnin ydinsanoma on, että jotkin tavat osallistua yhteiskuntaan ovat parempia kuin toiset. Rationalisointi sopii luontevasti tuottavuuskeskusteluun. Tuotanto, tuottavuus ja rationaalisuus ovat teollisen yhteiskunnan peruspilareita. Normalisointi esiintyy tuottavuuskeskustelussa enne, How does productivity discourse in Helsingin Sanomat construct institutional reality? How does the discourse legitimize different perspectives? How does the discourse reflect the history of the institutions? With these research questions, I build on the earlier research on discursive legitimization. This research can be classified as organization research using institutional theory. My research questions are practically relevant, because productivity is a key factor for economic performance. Productivity discourse is used in larger contexts than the context where productivity as an economic measure has been defined. That is why it is relevant to research how the productivity discourse itself legitimizes institutions. The research material in Helsingin Sanomat can be classified into four discourses: work, national economy, digitalization and development. The discourse builds on institutionalized concepts. The concepts are routinely used without analyzing or describing their meaning. For example, the word participation is routinely used without any target of participation. The meanings of participation are abstract. Working is participation into the growth of the gross domestic product. Labor market is the most prevalent institution in productivity discourse. Originally, labor market is a theoretical abstraction of matching the supply and demand of labor. However, in the productivity discourse, labor market is a set of organizations and ways of working. Matching or not matching the supply and demand of labor are just factors that affect the labor market institutions. The most prevalent legitimation strategies in productivity discourse are moralization, rationalization and normalization. Moralization can be summarized so that some ways to participate into society are better than others. Rationalization is a natural strategy in discourse about production, productivity and rationality. Normalization practically means that the discourse does not question the institutional

Research Summary This paper examines how strategy-makers attempt to reconcile change initiatives with organizational values and principles laid out long before, still encased in strategic identity statements such as corporate mottos and philosophies. It reveals three discursive strategies that strategy-makers use to establish a sense of continuity in time of change: elaborating (transferring part of the content of the historical statement into a new one), recovering (forging a new statement based on the retrieval and re-use of historical references), and decoupling (allowing the co-existence of the historical statement and a contemporary one). By so doing, our study advances research on uses of the past, establishes important linkages between identity and strategy research, and enhances our understanding of the intergenerational transfer of values in family firms. Managerial Summary Crafting a new corporate philosophy or mission statement can help implement strategic change, but can also be experienced as a disruption in people's sense of "who we are" as an organization. This paper reveals a variety of strategies that managers can use to deal with the tension between promoting change and maintaining a sense of continuity with a distant, revered past. By doing so, it helps managers confronting these issues deal with the enabling and constraining effects of the past. While this is a more general challenge for organizations with historical legacies, it is a particularly delicate issue for family firms grappling with the need to transfer values from one generation to the next, while retaining flexibility to change and adapt over time.

Irony is an effective means of dealing with controversy in organizations, but there is a paucity of knowledge of the various ways in which irony helps managers to do so without necessarily ‘solving’ those issues. By drawing on discursive incongruity theory, we examine the use of irony when managers are confronted with controversial issues in a multinational company. As a result, we identify and elaborate on four distinctively different pathways of how irony helps participants to move on: ‘acquiescing’ (framing understanding as having no alternative because of environmental constraints), ‘empowering’ (synthesizing a view through broad inputs from different individuals), ‘channelling’ (subsuming other interpretations under a single and often dominant view) and ‘dismissing’ (rejecting alternative interpretations and often reinforcing the status quo). On this basis, we develop a theoretical model that elucidates the process dynamics in dealing with and moving on with controversial issues and elaborates the specific characteristics of each of these four pathways. Our analysis also leads to a fuller understanding of the discursive underpinnings and intersubjective dynamics in irony use in organizations.

This thesis examines media discourses related to a mergers and acquisitions process concerning Finnish cranes and industrial lifting equipment manufacturer and service provider Konecranes. The focus is on investigating legitimation dynamics and various strategies utilized to discursively construct legitimacy in the media. Past research has examined legitimation strategies and dynamics in M&As but little is known of the evolution of such dynamics in times of strategic change. Therefore, particular attention is paid to the changes in these strategies over time when an intended merger is cancelled and an acquisition takes place. The objective of this study is to answer the following research questions: ““What are the discursive legitimation dynamics and strategies in a merger and acquisition process?” and “How do these dynamics evolve over time when a merger is cancelled and an acquisition takes place?”. By adopting discourse analysis as a qualitative research method, I examine the micro-level processual dynamics of legitimation in the media. My data consists of 201 media accounts covering the M&A process. These are gathered from four Finnish newspapers and a magazine. Through abduction, I identify five independent and one dependent discursive strategies utilized in the media to (de)construct legitimacy. Rationalization, authorization, normalization, moralization, narrativization and politicization are demonstrated to be utilized both intentionally and unintentionally to either legitimate or delegitimate organizational actions. My findings indicate that legitimation strategies are utilized in various ways during different periods of a M&A process. It is shown that rationalization and authorization function as primary strategies and that when a merger is cancelled and an acquisition takes place, intentional legitimation efforts focus on positive aspects of the new deal instead of comparison between the two. I also argue that the amount and nature of source material avai

This paper marks a departure from the focus on external stakeholders in much research on legitimacy and Multinational Corporations, adopting a social psychological approach to study how MNCs build internal legitimacy for controversial decisions with their subsidiaries. We explore this through a longitudinal, real-time qualitative case study of a regional office relocation, since office relocations represent rare yet significant strategic decisions. We analyze the interplay between the legitimation strategies of senior managers and subsidiary legitimacy judgments, based in instrumental, relational, and moral considerations, and how the relationship between the two develops over time. From this analysis we derive inductively a process model that reveals the dynamics of building internal legitimacy with subsidiaries, and how an MNC moves on even in the absence of full legitimacy, when dealing with controversial MNC decisions. The model highlights two important dynamics. The first is a dynamic between legitimation strategies and legitimacy judgments and how this is influenced by local subsidiary contexts. The second is a temporal dynamic in how both the legitimation strategies and legitimacy judgments evolve over time. Our model contributes to research on legitimacy in MNCs, what we know about tensions that characterize MNC sub-unit relationships, and research on headquarters relocation.

This paper focuses on research on the “human side” of global mergers and acquisitions (M&As). We argue that there is a need for a more fine-grained understanding of the “human side,” which requires conceptualizing M&As as practice-oriented processes. Drawing on the practice approach, we outline avenues for further research on the “human side” of global M&As. The research directions include (1) multilayered identity dynamics, (2) emotional processes, (3) participation and change agency, (4) resistance, (5) human resource management (HRM) practices and tools, and (6) new forms of communication.

This paper marks a departure from the focus on external stakeholders in much research on legitimacy and Multinational Corporations, adopting a social psychological approach to study how MNCs build internal legitimacy for controversial decisions with their subsidiaries. We explore this through a longitudinal, real-time qualitative case study of a regional office relocation, since office relocations represent rare yet significant strategic decisions. We analyze the interplay between the legitimation strategies of senior managers and subsidiary legitimacy judgments, based in instrumental, relational, and moral considerations, and how the relationship between the two develops over time. From this analysis we derive inductively a process model that reveals the dynamics of building internal legitimacy with subsidiaries, and how an MNC moves on even in the absence of full legitimacy, when dealing with controversial MNC decisions. The model highlights two important dynamics. The first is a dynamic between legitimation strategies and legitimacy judgments and how this is influenced by local subsidiary contexts. The second is a temporal dynamic in how both the legitimation strategies and legitimacy judgments evolve over time. Our model contributes to research on legitimacy in MNCs, what we know about tensions that characterize MNC sub-unit relationships, and research on headquarters relocation.

New organizational structures where employees have equal decision-making power have been introduced and the overall atmosphere in business has been shifting towards more inclusive organizations. It has been claimed that flat and democratic organizations represent the new generation of organizations in general. Also, in Finland the role and power to influence employees rise a lot of debate in the field of business and mass media at the moment. Giving power to the employees is seen as a tool to create commitment and agile ways to serve the customer. Finnish working life and companies are very inclusive compared to other parts of the world. We have a long history in involving employees via employee representatives, but there are also many young companies that see the role of employees in a completely new way. However, the majority of companies in Finland have a long history and can be perceived as traditional. What role employees currently have in these companies when it comes to decision-making? This thesis work is to study the role employees have in strategy work and strategic decision-making in organizations that are perceived traditional. In this qualitative multi-case research, the research data was collected through semi-structured interviews with altogether 32 employees from three different-sized industrial production companies. The interviewees represent different levels of the organization from the production employees to top management. Data analysis was conducted as an iterative and explorative process, where data was transcripted, categorized and synthesized. Finally, the research findings were discussed with existing literature in order to improve the finding’s validity. According to the study findings, participation in strategy is seen very differently compared to participation in decision-making. There were also big differences between the different employee groups represented. The production employees (blue-collars) were largely satisfied with

Mergers and acquisitions are common in today’s business world. However, they do not always end up as profitable as expected since a large part of them fails. The people aspect in these mergers has been found more and more important lately, as well as the post-merger integration. Post-merger integration is a crucial phase in the merger success and this thesis focuses on the role of organizational culture in post-merger integration. This thesis presents an intensive single-case study about company Eniram, which was acquired by Wärtsilä in the summer 2016. The focus is on the employees of Eniram and how they have experienced the change of organizational culture in the post-merger integration phase and what the biggest cultural challenges and factors contributing to the development of these cultural challenges are. The primary data for this thesis was collected through qualitative semi-structured interviews and it was combined with secondary data from employee satisfaction surveys, exit interviews and the researcher’s own observations at the workplace. The thematic analysis of the data revealed that cultural clashes, weak cultural knowledge, resistance to change, distrust and injustice as well as engagement and motivational challenges were experienced challenging by the employees in the post-merger integration. The main findings for the factors contributing to the development of these challenges were the cultural differences in the companies’ ways of working, weak communication, poor involvement of employees and the remaining identification with the old organization. These were experienced in all organizational levels and throughout the different teams. Thus, the practical implications of this thesis are to emphasize the importance of HR practices, suh as diminishing the cultural differences and creating new common culture, two-way communication, involvement of employees and helping the employees to change their identities. These factors enable the merger success and to

The purpose of this thesis is to examine how shutdowns are legitimated in the media coverage of four recent shutdown cases. A specific approach to metaphors as vehicles of legitimation is adopted. Thereby, the study contributes to the research focusing on discursive construction of the sense of legitimacy in organizational restructurings. The research question the study aims at answering is: “How are metaphors used to legitimate shutdowns and related layoffs in Finnish media texts?” A critical discourse analysis approach is adopted and applied on a data set of 107 articles covering four Finnish shutdown cases and collected from five Finnish newspapers. The data set is analyzed by identifying metaphorical expressions and categorizing them into thematic groups. Finally, underly-ing metaphorical thought concepts are suggested and their potential implications for the sense of legitimacy of the shutdowns discussed. The findings reveal that metaphors are frequently used to discuss shutdowns and that the most recurring metaphors are those related to war, sports, journey, and life and death. Based on this observation, it is concluded that metaphors engage in both legiti-mating and resisting shutdowns by portraying them in terms of one or several of these categories.